The subject of drugs and drug-testing, subject of recent reports by Matt Rudy for Golf Digest and Ron Sirak for Golf World, came up again Tuesday at Peter Dawson's press conference--where Dawson announced that the R&A would not begin testing at this year's British. This followed the recent announcement by the Tour that it would postpone testing for a year. For interesting give and take on the question, see Geoff Shackelford today. But the spiciest thing to come of this week's announcement was Lawrence Donegan's Guardian blog entitled "Time for golf to stop being so naive":

Professional golfers take drugs. I know this because drug use is pervasive in society as a whole and professional golfers are part of that wider society. I know it because I have heard numerous tales about golfers using drugs. But mostly I know it because I once saw a professional golfer smoke a joint on the course during a European tour event - the Dutch Open, wouldn't you just know.

So when the endless litany of self-deluded authority figures in the game step up to the microphone to declare there are no drugs in golf, it is fair to assume they are talking codswallop. Eventually, the absurdity of what these authority figures were saying dawned on those who were saying it and they conceded that golf would have to come into line with other sports and introduce drug testing.

Hang on. I got the part about self-deluded, but did you say something about a doobie at the Dutch?

Which brings us to the question of what drugs should be tested for, a theme of the Golf World report, and a question close to the heart of the players. As in other sports, there's not consensus on which drugs enhance and which just, well, get you through. (Can you imagine if they tested for marijuana in the NBA?) For now recreation drugs are on the list. But will they stay there?

--Bob Carney

Reader Gary McCormick of San Jose, California, writes lovingly of Dan Jenkins.

Dear Mr. Jenkins, I just learned that you have a new book coming out. I have pre-ordered "The Franchise Babe" and am counting the days 'til it hits my doorstep.

Not that I get tired of re-reading "Dead Solid Perfect", "The Money-Whipped Steer-Job Three-Jack Give-Up Artist" (could you have made that title any longer?) or "Slim and None" mind you, but new words from your geezer-codger typewriter are always welcome, whether the subject is golf, football, sportswriting (I love Jim Tom Pinch), or just plain people.

I have to tell you (without taking through all 18 holes, so to speak) that you shaped my entry into the world of golf and have influenced my views and outlook on the game for over two decades....

Through your work I have come to know Ben Hogan, Byron Nelson, Bobby Jones and the rest of the varied panoply of the world of golf. I have especially come to admire and respect the life and career of Ben Hogan, whose dedication to the purity of the game is, I believe, second to none in the history of sport. The more I read your work, the more I regret my grandfather ever moved the family out of Texas!

Thanks for being there to educate and entertain us.

Gary, that move to California has nurtured your family. You've learned to share, to express your emotions and that's a good thing. But please don't call Dan a geezer-codger.

--Bob Carney

Dick Carver of Clifton, Virginia, is another reader who takes exception to our "How Green is Golf?" package. He brings up a provocative piece by Patrick Michaels in the Wall Street Journal.

I have been a golfer since I was twelve, and it has remained a real important part of my life. I personally believe Golf has an obligation to always maintain the environment.

However, I am disappointed in teh "advocates" you chose to make the case for the issues related to the current condition of our environment and the steps everyone in the golfing world need to take as a commitment to our Earth. In the April 18 edition of the Wall Street Journal is an op-ed by Professor Patrick Michaels, who is a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. John Barton should have begun by talking to people like Professor Michaels instead of people with little science background, who promote the anecdotal approach to the current claims about global warming.

As Professor Michaels points out, these problems, including the role of golf, need to be based on honest, scientific examination, not "political concepts.

I recommend the Michaels piece. From his conclusion:

There's a photograph in the journal "Arctic," published in 1953 by R.H. Katz, captioned "River disappearing in 40-foot deep gorge," on Greenland's Adolf Hoels Glacier. It's all there in the open literature, but apparently that's too inconvenient to bring up. Greenland didn't shed its ice then. There was no acceleration of the rise in sea level.

Finally, no one seems to want to discuss that for millennia after the end of the last ice age, the Eurasian arctic was several degrees warmer in summer (when ice melts) than it is now. We know this because trees are buried in areas that are now too cold to support them. Back then, the forest extended all the way to the Arctic Ocean, which is now completely surrounded by tundra. If it was warmer for such a long period, why didn't Greenland shed its ice?

This prompts the ultimate question: Why is the news on global warming always bad? Perhaps because there's little incentive to look at things the other way. If you do, you're liable to be pilloried by your colleagues. If global warming isn't such a threat, who needs all that funding? Who needs the army of policy wonks crawling around the world with bold plans to stop climate change?

But as we face the threat of massive energy taxes – raised by perceptions of increasing rates of warming and the sudden loss of Greenland's ice – we should be talking about reality.

--Bob Carney

Ontario, Canada, reader Cam Pettit writes with an interesting idea, inspired by his reading of the Jay Feldman and Mike Hurdzan interviews in John Barton's How Green is Golf ? article in the May issue. Feldman, who directs Beyond Pesticides (beyondpesticides.org), told Barton:

The problem is, when you spray pesticides, they tend to move off the target site. The U.S. Geological put out a report in 2006 that looked at waters and streams and lakes in teh U.S. and found pesticides everywhere they looked. The typical response you get from superintendents is taht they're using registered pesticide products, they're using them in compliance with the lable, their pesticide applicators are trained and certified, so what's the problem? But there are clear deficiencies in the regulatory process in evaluating the full body of health outocomes that we're concerned about....

Pettit's idea is a start-small approach:

I'm pleased with the messages that both he and Mike Hurdzan are promoting and that there are people looking at making golf more eco-friendly. In an effort to reduce water consumption and chemical use on the golf course, I'd like to issue the following challenge to golf courses: Make one hole on your course (or an entire nine) eco-friendly; no inorganic pesticides or fertilizers and limited watering (greens and tee decks at a maximum). Offer a feedback form for guests who've played the eco-friendly section of the course and see what they thought of the conditioning and playability of the respective hole(s). Along those lines, Golf Digest could get involved with the governing bodies to standardize the form such that results could be used in further discussions of how to make golf more eco-friendly. For me, knowing that I'm playing on an eco-friendly course would help my conscience and dare I say it....possibly even help my game.

I love the one-hole idea for its educational potential. But I'm afraid "leaving the spots on the apples" may take some getting used to for most of the membership, some respondents to this blog and to our environmental forum. It's a start, though. Thanks, Cam.

--Bob Carney

Without about a week to go in the voting, our U.S. Open contest has surpassed 100,000 ballots.

The contest will give one of five finalists--selected from almost 60,000 entrants--the opportunity to play Torrey Pines just days before the U.S. Open, under Open conditions, from the Open tees, with NBC's Matt Lauer, Dallas Cowboy quarterback Tony Romo and actor/singer Justin Timberlake. The challenge: prove that an average golfer about 10 handicap can break 100 on an Open venue.

Right now, clear leader is Omaha sales rep John Atkinson, who has a handicap index of 8.0, which translates at Torrey to the 10-handicap amateur Tiger referred to when he said last year a 10 could not break 100 on the Open course at Oakmont.

We'll find out on June 6 in San Diego.

--Bob Carney

It was beginning to look like our readership was a whole lot more intransigent on environmental issues than we thought--previous posts and responses on the subject here--but a poll this week on our web site suggests otherwise.

We asked: In order to conserve water, would you be willing to play on brown grass during periods of low rainfall? Yes or No

Results mid-afternoon today, with about 300 responses:

Yes: 64.91%
No: 35.09%

Not exactly radical, but responsible for sure...Meanwhile, you'll find some interesting discussion on our Golf and the Environment forum.

--Bob Carney

Just when we'd thought we made a convincing case that new course conditions at Augusta, given the right weather, will produce the requisite scores and roars, here comes a letter from Mick Herron, Director of Golf and General Manager at Bay Pointe CC in Onset, Massachusetts, telling us we're all wet and praising John Hawkins report in Golf World:

Finally! John Hawkins opening line of his superb piece on the '08 Masters perfectly describes my frustrations the past two years - "the world's greatest golf tournament is no longer the world's greatest golf tournament...."

As a long time PGA club professional I took advantage of the incredible hospitality of the members of Augusta National by attending the '98 (the year of Matt Kuchar!) Masters. Managing to finally return in '07 I camped out at my favorite spot borne from my debut.....alongside the 15th green. I arrived there with my brother (his first Masters at age 60), prepping him for what was about to happen--i.e., trainwrecks, eagle roars, knife-edge short game tests and the like. Well, we sat there for literally 3 hours and witnessed a procession of 70-80 yard wedge shots from 50 consecutive players. Just one young amateur rookie tried to reach in two during this funeral march.

We got up from our once precious seats wandering directionless toward--I forget! I cursed the powers that be for screwing with the powers that once were - they totally did not get it! I waited for confirmation from Hawkins, Diaz, et.al. but to no avail. Now that '08 duplicated the boring '07 version we are finally seeing across the board the journalistic accuracy depicting how a small group of men (and just possibly one man - F. Ridley) transformed what was once the absolute best sporting event into a joke. Can Mr. Ridley hear Bobby Jones & Clifford Roberts screaming right now? We all know they are aware of their drastic mistakes - why would they backtrack on some "changes" to the 11th this year. To John Hawkins and all the other "courageous" golf writers in our community who have "come out of the closet", I say....finally!

Lastly, I contend that the present day Augusta National, if not changed back, will forever produce winners (and worthy they are, no doubt) like Zach Johnson, and the Trevor Immelmans of the world. Not only was Tiger not totally interested, nor were many of us who look forward to this event for months in advance. A true shame.

Mike, that's a strong letter. (I won't pass it on to Zach or Trevor). Just one thing: Tiger Woods could be wearing his sixth green jacket this month, had he made a few putts. He had his chances in both '07 and '08. And had he made those charges, the roars would have been unforgettable, and I'm not sure you'd be writing.

--Bob Carney

Some of us thought perhaps we'd watched a different tournament when post-Masters reports called the it boring and decried the loss of roars post course-alteration. Players--Tiger included--were happy to cooperate with these reports, calling the course just "too tough" and the tournament "more like a U.S. Open." We heard from some of you, readers, too, saying you thought the Masters had lost its Sunday magic.

Here are two reports that challenge that conventional wisdom. First, David Barrett on Golfobserver.com:

OK, if I read one more story about how this was the second straight dull Sunday at the Masters, I'm going to scream.

Barrett makes the point that Thursday, Friday and Saturday delivered exactly the scores the writers seem to be longing for.

For the first three days, there were plenty of red numbers on the scoreboard. Trevor Immelman had three rounds in the 60s on the way to an 11-under 205 total through 54 holes--a total that has been bettered only four times in the last 28 years and eight times in the history of the Masters. The cut came at 147, the lowest since 2002.

The greens were reasonably receptive as the course remained in the same condition as on Wedneday when Masters chairman Billy Payne said it was playing just the way Augusta wanted it. Then on Sunday, the winds came and scoring became difficult. Hey, it happens.

The AP's Doug Ferguson takes a similar tack.

Remember, it was only a year ago when Jim Nantz produced a colorized version of Arnold Palmer’s victory in the 1960 Masters. Palmer didn’t birdie either of the par 5s on the back nine, but rallied with a 30-foot birdie on the 17th and a 6-iron to 6 feet on the final hole.

He closed with a 70.

One final thought: Woods missed a 5-foot birdie putt on the 13th, failed to get up-and-down for birdie on the 15th (not the easiest chip), missed a 12-foot birdie on the 16th and three-putted for bogey on the 14th. Convert all those and he shoots 68, coming from six shots behind to the win his fifth green jacket.

Still a boring Masters?

Couldn't agree more. And even without Tiger making those putts, we watched every shot. For the past two years, despite the weather, there has been the potential for a spectacular come-from-behind finish by the world's best golfer. The fact that he didn't make that charge is not the fault of the course. And had he done it, we'd be talking about the prospects of a Slam--and one of the most exciting Masters ever.

--Bob Carney

I love this letter from Stewart Thomson of Newport Beach, California. In it he reports on a pre-test of the whole US Open contest: Can a 10-handicap golfer break 100 on the Open course under Open conditions?

Like several contestants in the US Open contest, Stewart offered, in his essay, to make a contribution to charity (Tiger Woods Foundation) for every stroke over 100, if he were the Average Joe picked to play Torrey Pines. Though not chosen as a finalist, he decided to determine just how much he would have spent by going to Torrey Pines and playing the course. Here's his report:

Thank you for not picking my entry, where I pledged $1,000 to the Tiger Woods Foundation for every stroke over 100.  I thought this would cost me about $10,000 and after playing TP South yesterday with our club's Senior Group, I believe you saved me some money!

I maintain that a 10-handicap player will not break 100.  Our tournament rules yesterday were white tees (1,000 yards less than the black tees), ESC to speed up play, and if a ball is lost in the rough, drop a ball, so the conditions were far from the official rules.  My group was a 7, 9, 10 and 13 handicap and we shot 86, 86, 98 and 98 respectively.  Except for the 9, we all lost balls in the rough, although I expect you will have spotters and caddies to help for searches, which we did not have.  Also, the rough was more penal than it will be for the Open as the USGA is letting the rough grow longer now, so that they can cut it to even heights before the tournament.  Lastly, the greens were not as fast as they will be in June.

Based on yesterday's play, our 9, who hit a very straight ball and probably only was saved one or two strokes by ESC, would be closest to your standard, but in my estimation would not break 100 under your playing rules.  Based on his play yesterday, it would be very close.  The secret key is to stay out of the rough, which he did on all but 4 holes.

I appreciate the difficulty in your selecting the five finalists, but to be fair, a 4.7, 6.4 and someone without an index do not qualify, in my opinion, so I have voted for John and I hope he wins, although he will be very disappointed when he hits his 100th stroke on 17!

Interesting comment about your choice among the finalists. John Atkinson is leading by a considerable margin at this point. John's popularity is certainly due in part to his brave fight against cancer and the wonderfully positive approach he's taken to talking about it. But I'm coming to believe that another reason people have voted for John is that his handicap is closest to the 10 to which Tiger referred when he said a 10 couldn't break 100 at last year's Open course. John's course handicap, were he to be chosen, would be more than 10, actually; probably 11 or 12.

For the record, all of the finalists have handicaps. We estimate their Torrey Pines course handicaps will range from 8 for Erik Norton and Matt Rice to 12 for Phil Dembure and John Atkinson. The precise number will depend on the rating of the course in Open condition, which will happen soon.

Thanks for the detailed report, Stewart. And, um, feel free to make that contribution anyway....

--Bob Carney
 

Interesting note from Michael Morris of Santa Rosa on the How Green is Golf? story by John Barton in the May issue. The story has generated tons of comment, much of it suprisingly negative, but Michael supports one of our suggestions in particular.

Your advice to reduce golf’s environmental impact include walking instead of taking a cart.  I prefer to do just that, but some people in the US just don’t get it.  When my son and I were in Florida over the holidays, not one course would let us walk!  And that includes the PGA Golf Club in Port St. Lucie.  Combine that with a ‘cart path only’ policy and you get five or six hour rounds.  Funny, two years ago in Scotland we walked every time, and all rounds were under four hours except at Kingsbarns where most of the golfers were American, in carts, and playing at a six hour pace.  Walking isn’t just a good way to reduce consumption of expensive gas and electricity, it could solve the problem of slow play and expand the appeal of the game to those who don’t have time to spend all day at a course.

Michael, thanks. Because I know how much the PGA is promoting all kinds of golf, on foot or on wheels, we called PGA Golf Club and they told us we were free to walk, but we would pay the same fee as we would if we took a cart, i.e., the cart fee was inseparable. (In my view, given the courses there, still a bargain).

Geoff Shackelford mentions the story in his blog today and the comments are lively.
 
--Bob Carney

We're getting a bunker full of mail on the Masters course changes and set-up. Like John Hawkins, who covered the event for Golf World, and many other writers, some--but not all--or you think that the course changes have subtracted drama from the event.

Gene Martineau of Roseville, California, says "Congraluations to the folks at the Masters. They have accomplished their stated goal of Tiger Proofing their course so well that Tiger may never again win another Green Jacket."

And Doug Foy or Fort Wayne thinks he knows where, exactly, the roars have been removed:

I always look forward to your in depth issue that comes out after every major. I do agree that some of the fun has been takin out of the Masters. By looking through the hole by hole chart that you always provide, it is obvious that the par 3's & par 4's are all being played over par while the par 5's are being played under par. The tees could be moved up a little on the par 5's so more players would not lay up, but the big difference is the par 4's are just to tough to birdie and easier to bogey. Hopefully the "Big Dogs" at Augusta noticed the same thing.

But many of you don't see any problem in the courses changes or the Sunday set-up. Unlike the writers who made course changes their theme, you like what you see.

Here's Malcolm Roberts of Huntington Beach, California, after reading our coverage:

I hope Trevor Immelmann is not insulted by the backhanded compliments mentioned in your coverage of this year's Masters. Whenever Tiger doesn't win people act as if its a tragedy or a fluke, and by the way this other guy happened to hit more fairways and greens and putt better. While I agrre with Mr. Russell that past Masters had more flash the tournament had to change before bomb 'n' gouge players took what skill is left in the game ( with the better equipment factored in ) out. Jack Nicklaus has been quoted many times that off the fairway should be a penalty; bravo to the majors for returning good all-around golf to the rewards podium.

And David Crow of Huntington Beach, California:

Re: Masters not being "fun"anymore. If "fun" means shooting like 25 under Par as Lorena Ochoa did in Mexico (a WAY TOO EASY course?), then maybe the Masters isn't "fun". Instead, the Masters remains a rarity - a REAL TEST of golf skills. Go MASTERS!!!!!

This editor's two cents: Trevor Immelman was 11 under par after three rounds, and got to ten under par on the par fours. (Amazing.) On Sunday, despite five or six tees being moved up and hole locations made quite accessible, the weather took its toll, with temperatures dropping into the low 60s and winds gusting to 30 miles per hour. That was Mother Nature, not Father Payne.

--Bob Carney

Kurt Rightmyer of Los Osos, California, is one of many readers to question our Final Five choices in the US Open Contest. We've heard that their handicaps are too low (see previous posts here) and that we haven't made a big enough deal of their essays (which indeed are printed under their Finalists Gallery photos in the voting area). But Kurt has a different take on things:

I just read Newsweek's new article about how divorce has become the norm in America. Sadly that's the average nowadays, but thankfully that's not the case for any of your Final Five "average" golfers, all of whom have been happily married for about a dozen years. Also, tens of millions of seniors play golf in this country, but I don't recall seeing any gray on the heads of your "average" golfers. Did you photoshop the pictures?

Let me take those comments one at a time. First, "happily married" was not a requirement. I know some divorced guys who are perfectly "average" golfers. But you make an interesting observation. The golfing life, for better and for worse, seems to attract and (one might argue) nurture the traditional family, despite all of its golf-widow jokes. Advertisers please take note.

On your second point, it's also the game of a lifetime, and that means millions of kids who have become seniors are still avid. Thousands of them entered the contest. While we're not guilty of photoshoping, you're right, we did chose five fellows who are far from their first Social Security check. We just thought their stories--their essays, their golf, their connection to the game--fit the bill. But from one senior (I think) to another--you must be, or you wouldn't be this wise--we're doing it again next year!

--Bob Carney

We'll take a moment away from the Green debate to engage in the Green Jacket debate: Have the leaders of Augusta National toughened the to the point that it has lost its roars, made it "more like an Open", "a survival contest." That is the post-mortem story of the tournament. Read John Hawkins' game story or visit Geoff Shackelford and you'll here plenty from the media. Being one of the few on the other side of debate--I think Tiger's putter might have made this one of the most exciting Masters ever, but did not-- I was curious about our readers would think. And now the letters are coming in:

Michael Lach of Irvine, California writes:

In my humble opinion after playing and watching golf for over 50 ears (also a single-digit handicap), the green coats of Augusta have succeeeded in making this a boring tournament where the luckiest person wins. The greens are so tricked up that a good shot becomes bad, a perfect shot might be a good one. However, a lucky shot that hits on the top of a rise within a one-foot square on the green, and trickles near the hole becomes a great shot...This is luck, not skill. In the US Open, if you hit the fairway, you have a decent chance of making a good-to-great shot, not so at Augusta anymore. The days when someone rallies on the back nine with a 30 to win it are gone, unless it rains heavily and the greens are soft....

The pros now have trouble making birdies on 13 and 15, which were the most exciting holes in the Masters, expecially on Sunday....Quite honestly, I dozed off and not because Tiger didn't charge, but because I knew no one would make it interesting. The winner chopped it around and still won by 3....

Mike, you're in good company. Many if not most of the writers who covered Immelman's win seemed to agree, except about that "chopped it around" part, and took that story line.

I'm not so sure. Eight-under par is a reasonable winning score, one predicted by Justin Rose prior to the event. There continue to be birdie and even eagle opportunities at 13 and 15. Birdies by Woods and Snedeker at 11 and 12 respectively did create huge roars. Despite weather that conspired against charges on Sunday, to suggest that the 2008 Masters was not exciting or that the champion is somehow not the "right" one, is way wide of the mark, in this humble opinion.

--Bob Carney

Letters and posts continue on our Green story. You seem more anxious to talk about this than John Daly's personal life, Tiger's knee surgery or even the question of whether the Masters has lost its roar. Right now, comments against our story, by John Barton in the May issue, are running well ahead of those in support. Here are two letters that represent the ends of the spectrum:

Dave Wall of Rome, Georgia:

I was disgusted to see that with the May issue my favorite publication has gone p.c. by endorsing the unproven myth of man-made global warming. What's next? Will the PGA now require all the pros to see Al Gore's hysterical move, drive electric cars and picket the White House to demand our signing of the Kyoto Treaty? Please cancel my subscription.

Dr. Stephen Goldberger, Farmville, Virginia:

I have been a subscriber since before Tiger Woods was born and, to my (increasingly weaning) memory the May 2008 issue was the strongest ever. You addressed two key issue--self-improvement and the environment--in very substantive, informative depth. It was also refreshing to see a golf-oriented magazine take the Bush Administration to task....on their dismantling of the EPA. If you put equal effort into growing the game, you should be in line for the Nobel Prize for golf. Thanks for a great issue.

Did you know that when Alfred Nobel proposed the idea of the Peace Prizes he was ridiculed by King Olaf II of Sweden and attacked by his relatives who challenged his will? And now Al Gore has one of those prizes.

Call me a radical, but here's one view: Whether you believe that human beings influence global climate change or not, you ought to be concerned that we're using water and pesticides wisely, and golf, as an industry, ought to be concerned that we're doing that on golf courses. That's why John Barton did the story and why the various experts--of wildly different opinions, by the way--cooperated.

Meanwhile, President Bush will today "lay out specific goals for limiting greenhouse gases that scientists say are responsible for warming the planet," according to the New York Times.

--Bob Carney

Interesting that this letter from Missouri reader Hallie Gibbs was sent to us on Friday, in response to David Owen's column about Tiger in the May issue of Golf Digest, just at the point that most of us expected the usual Tiger charge to be gathering for a fifth Masters victory.

Owen writes of Tiger's dominance:

The real explanation, I think, is that Tiger's rivals try even harder when Tiger is playing well and end up focusing on him instead of staying out of their own way. When all those other guys finally, truly give up -- that's when Tiger will have to watch his back.

David Owen doesn't give Tiger enough credit. It's not a chokefest out there. Tiger is that much better! Even when he isn't playing, nobody in the "Tigerless" tournaments grinds and makes putts like he does. It's one thing to say that Tiger is intimidating. But it's another to acknowledge that he is just that much better!

You're right, of course, until he isn't for a day or a tournament and this past Sunday happens. Tiger's not perfect. The lack of roars down the stretch this week weren't due, in my opinion, to the "new" Augusta National. They were due to Tiger Woods not making putts. (I'll bet that's his assessment, too). He had plenty of opportunity. He missed putts at 13, 14, 15 and 16. Had he made the short putts at 13 and 16, and two-putted 14, pines would have fallen the roars would have been so loud. His putt on 11 and his approach to 13 seemed to set it all up. And then golf as we know it, not magical Tiger Woods golf, happened.

We remember the roars that Jack created at Augusta but tend to forget the times the roars did not materialize, the putts didn't fall and Jack was runner-up. He finished second four times in the Masters--in 1964, 1971, 1977 and 1981--more than anyone except Ben Hogan and Tom Weiskopf, who also had four. Jack came in first or second in ten Masters tournaments: six wins, four seconds. Tiger, I suspect, will equal both those marks before he's through.

To quote Owen again: "Even if Tiger retired tomorrow, he'd have my vote as the best player ever."

Amen.

--Bob Carney

Well. That April golf-and-the-environment story certainly aroused your attention and, for many of you, your ire. This letter from Ken Artingstall of Glendale, California (Ronald Reagan country if I'm not mistaken), is the latest in a rapid series:

Be careful if you intend to enter the political arena in a sports publication. There are plenty of us who believe the so-called "environmental movement" is just socialism in its latest guise, "man-made global warming" is a hoax and "endangered species protection" is typical baby-boomer hubris. I no more believe humans can "control" this planet's environment than I'll be playing Augusta National on Masters Sunday. Stick to your knitting: You're a golf publication, not the Sierra Club.

Thanks, Ken. Your letter reminds me again of golf's power to bring together diverse human groups--like yours and mine, for instance. That unifying (and civilizing) power was on breathtaking display at Augusta National today, when the son shone, people were extremely nice to one another, strangers talked about a game they loved and nobody littered.

Events that can do that are an endangered species.

--Bob Carney

Lots of comment this morning about players being uncomfortable at the Masters this year. Geoff Shackelford talks about it today in our Dateline Augusta, quoting players and writers. This comfort thing is mostly related to the course.  Hootie Johnson's  changes, the changes to the changes, yesterday's weather, tough hole locations, etc. The Masters used to have a comfort level that other majors didn't. Players aren't feeling that this week.

But other changes are making non-players a bit uncomfortable. These changes are really about you: Readers. Patrons. Letter-writers. Golfers.  Maybe-golfers.

These changes suggest a significantly different attitude at Augusta and perhaps elsewhere:

Chairman Billy Payne opening an electronic suggestion box for ideas on growing the game..

Free admission for kids to the Masters...

Televising of the Par-3. (Despite some "Cliff Roberts would turn over in his grave" comments.

I'll add the tournament allowing its web site (and golfdigest.com) to send Marty Hackel, Mr. Style, out to talk to patrons about the "scene" here at Augusta...never been done before.

(While we're at it, let's range beyond this major into the next one, the Open, and add the fact the USGA and NBC are cooperating with Golf Digest's effort to put an average player on the US Open course at Torrey Pines. )

I'm sorry, did you say the Masters is asking for suggestions and the USGA has invited one of us hackers to come try it's Open setup? I would have bet large money against either of those things happening a few months ago.

Golf may be finally getting it--golf the Industry and the Game, not Trevor Immelman's round today. Not single-digit guys who play early Sunday morning and would just as soon you find another sport if you're going to mess with their starting time. Golf, the game too many kids don't have time for between soccer and World of Warcraft. Grass roots golf.

The fact is, Arnie's tee shot into the fog yesterday is a pretty fair metaphor for the state of our game. The old game is over and we don't know where the new one is going .  Arnie inspired a lot of us in the press room to find golf and we forget what a pain in the neck we must have been to the proper golfers of the day. We now find ourselves defending their turf.

What Billy Payne has done here may not be perfect. Maybe you're cynical about suggestion boxes. Maybe you've had it with cute kids in white bibs distracting Peter Kostis from important wedge shots.  Maybe mixing promotion with tradition for you is like stirring beer into your bourbon.

Or perhaps, at the other end, you're one of those readers who thinks it's not gone far enough and have decided the whole U.S. Open Contest is a "farce" because the finalists aren't 16-handicaps shooting 130.  We can't please y'all. But as Joe Steranka, the executive director of the PGA told me today, "We can talk about family golf all we want. But televising the Par 3, showing all those kids and their dads, that's more powerful than anything we could ever do."

Here's my suggestion to Chairman Payne: Keep it up. Keep stirring the pot. A Junior Masters? Why not. More international invitees? Of course. Golf in the Olympics? Absolutely. Who knows what will show up in that idea box.

And if it gets uncomfortable for some of us old ones, so be it. Arnie won't be with us forever. Nor will Tiger and let's face it, we want post-Tiger golf to do better than post-Michael basketball.  That will take new new Tigers, new Arnies.... 

It's not going to happen by itself. Send Billy a suggestion.

--Bob Carney

Augusta, GA. The early star of the Masters is someone who has never played the tournament, but was one of the last people to play golf with Bobby Jones. Louise Suggs, one of the 13 founders of the LPGA, stole the show Wednesday night at the annual Golf Writers Association of America dinner when she received the William D. Richardson award for contributions to the game of golf.

"All I know is there is more than one Tiger in the room tonight," the 84-year-old Suggs told about 400 people at the dinner honoring the best players and writers of 2007, referring to the tiger-print jacket she was wearing--and perhaps to her golf game. Tiger Woods was at the dinner to receive his one billionth Player-of-the-Year award. Suggs told the story of the time she defeated Sam Snead in an exhibition played on an executive course in Palm Beach. Snead was less than gracious in defeat, complaining about being beaten by a woman. "So I said to him,'Sam, why are you so upset? You didn't even finish second,'" Suggs reminded him.

Earlier yesterday Suggs, who went to her first Masters in 1939 and played Augusta National many times, sat in a chair outside the clubhouse and held court as a who's who list from the world of golf stopped to pay tribute, Jack Nicklaus among them. When Ben Crenshaw asked Suggs to demonstrate her grip--know as a textbook-flawless way to hold the club--and exchanged an admiring glance with Ben as she grasped an imaginary club.

When it was suggested to Suggs that she was "on a roll", having now won both the Richardson and the prestigious Bob Jones award from the USGA last year, she replied: "I'm more famous now than when I was famous."

Maybe not. Suggs won 58 LPGA events, including 11 major championships, as well as a bushel of major amateur tournaments. She played East Lake Country Club many times with Bob Jones, and was in the foursome with him during his last round of golf in 1948.

--Ron Sirak

(Photo: LPGA.com)

Let's face it, Rory Sabbatini gets no respect. Winner of yesterday's Par 3, he now has no chance to win the Masters, or so Masters logic goes. Now reader Linc Duncanson, Dresser, Wisconsin, administers the ultimate insult, relegating Sabbatini to part 2 of a letter on our US Open Contest.

Shame on you for choosing 5 low handicappers for the the U.S. Open Contest. Four are single digit handicappers and one is "approximately a 10."...When will you learn that the majority of your readers are single digit handicap golfers? It would have been fun to see an average Joe try.

And another thing: What makes you think that anyone cares what Rory Sabbatini carries in his bag? He's not an example of etiquette and sportsmanship that is Golf....

Linc, the voters seem to agree because the highest handicapper, John Atkinson has a substantial lead in the contest. His course handicap would probably be more like 12 at Torrey. (You still have time to vote).

Our feeling was that putting an average Joe (16-18 handicap) on Torrey under Open conditions might not be the best example of that etiquette and sportsmanship you mention. More like torture, eh?

--Bob Carney

Changes to Augusta National this year are not extensive--the thinning of trees along the right side of No. 11 is a welcome change for both spectators and players--but there remains considerable talk about "Hootie's" changes, the major alterations made under previous Chairman Hootie Johnson. Chairman Billy Payne said yesterday he was satisfied that the golf course is now where the club wants it, adding that "we haven't found it necessary to revisit" the idea of a Masters ball.

For a great primer on what the "new" Augusta is and how it meets or does not meet the aims of founder Bob Jones, check out two well-reported pieces on the course: Ron Whitten's "What Hootie Got Right" in the Golf Digest April issue and Geoff Shackelford's report on the "second cut" (that is, the rough), which includes many candid comments, including this from Jack Nicklaus:

"The rough has done what they wanted it to do from the standpoint of making it so [the players] can't spin the ball as easily into the green...That's what they've accomplished. But I'm a proponent of no rough."

And from Fuzzy Zoeller:

"It has probably made the course easier....Especially up around the greens. The balls used to roll out and away, and now mis-hit shots top closer to the green."

The "second cut" came up yesterday. Chirman Payne had the last word:

"We've always had different length grass here all the way from the beginning. I listened very carefully to the player interviews the last several days and looked back at last year's and they are split almost right down the middle about their opinion of the second cut.

But I think, first of all, we like it. We think it does put a premium on driving accuracy. However, we do believe that when you're in the second cut, it's more difficult to reach some of the pins because it does impact the ability to spin the ball.

The opinion I've just expressed, if you ask a hundred people, 50 would take the other side, but we like our side and that's what we're going to do. We like it."

--Bob Carney

(Illustration: Mike Keefe)

The first major is here. And two major winners have announced instructor changes. Yesterday Ernie Els talked about the switch from David Leadbetter to Butch Harmon and Retief Goosen about his recent sessions with Gregor Jamieson.

Ernie:

You know, I just wanted to get some different--get a different feel, get different words coming towards me, and just find a bit more about how Butch is teaching. He's obviously had a lot of success with players, and I love the way he changes people's games. I've seen it before. I've seen it with Stewart Cink and I've seen it with Justin Leonard and a lot of other players. I like the way they swing....

Els said the first subject with Butch was posture:

My posture really got a little out of whack. I've had too much turn going back on the backswing. My hips were really turning too much and my shoulders, everything was kind of collapsing at the top.

In other words, Harmon will shorten Els' swing as he did Mickelson's:

I'm quite a flexible guy, but swinging that long, I get out of sync with my lower body and upper, so I needed to stabilize that and shorten my backswing a little bit, and really get the club in front of me.

Els admitted that Harmon is also a teacher who can "push a guy's buttons" as one reporter put in a question:

You know, if you say he can press your button, he's a very direct guy, so in my little short stint with him so far, at least you know where you stand with him. I like that."

Els did not talk about it, but one other factor in the switch may be that Leadbetter is committed to spending more time with his family--he has two teenagers at home--at this point in his career.

Goosen, who never really had a regular instructor, talked about why he went to Jamieson:

I felt getting somebody just to have a look and work on those things can only improve [my swing]. I don't think it could have got any worse. So that's why I decided to go to Gregor, somebody that I can see now and then that's not too involved with too many other players and can just sort of focus on my swing.

On the other hand, Goosen reminded us that no matter who the teacher is, it's the player who has to make the shots.

The end of the day, it doesn't really matter who you work with and how much the coach can help you, you still have to feel comfortable out on the course.

Goosen's reference to an instructor not involved with too many players, echoed a question to Adam Scott, who also works with Harmon, about his teacher's growing stable of players:

Q: Do you feel it's getting a bit crowded in the stable?

A: Not for me. I get plenty of time with Butch that I need. He makes me aware that I'm going to get my time, and as long as that hapens, I'm happy for him to look at anybody he wants to.

Here's an idea for this year's Masters pool: not Tiger versus the field, but Tiger versus Butch's field....

--Bob Carney

Topic A is how it will play...here at Augusta and, if your letters are any indication, at your home course is well. The debate over John Barton's How Green is Golf? is level orange at this point. See posts here and on our environmental forum. The debate seems to be focused on the political at the moment--"I am writing to tell you that I buy your magazine to read about golf, not the environment. I read your magazine as an escape from the everyday bombardment of politics and doom and gloom that the media gives us"--sickofgreen wrote yesterday. But eventually we'll get to playing conditions and then color becomes a measure of firmness and speed, not political position. (See Golf Digest's new definition of "Conditioning" in its course rating as a start of that conversation).

The wish here at Augusta is to have last year's firmness/speed with this year's temperatures (70s). Which would mean, one hopes (one being media, the club and the players, oh, everybody) lower scores. Already the softness brought on by last weekend's rain has some players gently predicting a return to sub-par scores. (Zach Johnson won with plus-1 in '07).

Adam Scott: It's so hard to pick a winning score, but it's playing so long at the moment; it will be hard to get a lot of shots close...I don't know, a couple under maybe, if the weather's good.

But Sean Micheel, who said that last year's high scores were "definitely" weather-related, nonetheless thought high scores could happen again if we get no more rain: "Over par could happen."

Phil Mickelson agreed: They won't be lower. I think the scores may get a little bit higher, yeah, and the length is the biggest factor. Also all of the trees and the tightening of the golf course.

Privately players have been a bit bolder. One said that the course's softness, especially if we get showers on Friday and/or Saturday, could produce a score closer to 8- or 9-under par. The softness hurts some players, obviously, but gives long hitters a chance to hit approaches more aggressively.

Augusta will never by anything but green. But if we see no rain over the weekend and winds pick up as predicted, it will be a fast, light green and oldtime low scores will remain out of reach.

If that kind of Masters encourages golf clubs around the country to water a bit less, that's a good thing. If it pushes them to green speeds of 11 or 12, as Oakmont did last year, not so much.

--Bob Carney

It seems strange to hold a Masters without Davis Love III, who had appeared in 70 consecutive majors, including 17 consecutive Masters (two runner-up finishes), prior to failing to qualify this year. After four months of re-habbing an ankle ligament injury, Love has made three cuts in seven starts. Nice re-cap of Love's efforts in the Canadian Press.

"I'm close to playing good," he said. "I'm just not getting it done. I don't know if I'm ready for Augusta or not. I'm not really playing good enough to compete right now, so I probably don't deserve to play."

But Love said he's far ahead of the recovery time that doctors set for him. He wouldn't have returned so quickly if he had already secured a spot in the Masters.

"Because I was trying to get back in the Masters and getting back to playing well, I worked really hard," he said. "I've done really well and that's going to serve me well the rest of the year. But the Masters was definitely my motivation."

--Bob Carney

We expect to get lots of mail on John Barton's How Green is Golf ? story in the April Golf Digest. However, it's doubtful that any letter will match the passion of the first, from Dick Lombardo, a Green Committee member from West Friendship, Maryland:

I think it is unfortunate that "The Most Important Article We've Ever Published" is based on the following: Global warming is real; global warming is bad; global warming is, of course, caused by man, and even its even more arrogant counterpart--by reducing our "carbon footprint" we can affect clmate change positively (global cooling?) Why did Golf Digest have to take and promote a political position? Had Mr. Barton reported that the explosion in "green" sentimentality would impose certain sure changes on golf course design, construction and maintenance, the article would have been credible and journalistic. His focus on water conservation and improved pesticide use was.

In most things scientific, we know. The only thing known about global warming is that the politically correct position is to believe in it and all of its colectivist mandates fervently. John Barton spent three months researching what environmental and global warming advocates believe, and Golf Digest devoted more than thirty pages to admonish us for daring to enjoy well-manicured and green fairways and greens. I have served on the Green Committee at my club for the last six years, and I agree that water conservation and improved and reduced use of pesticides are important considerations. Of course, course the related consequencs and benefits are known. I challenge Golf Digest or anyone else to provide evidence...that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide affect didley.

Dick, it strikes me that the interviews that John did weren't all believers in "collectivist mandates", whatever those are. And I'm sure you know there are a couple people in the scientific community that disagree that global warming is mere hypothesis. Nevertheless, if the piece only reinforced the need for water conservation and more intelligent pesticide use, it was worth it. Thanks for your letter.

BTW, interesting piece yesterday in the Wall Street Journal on golf course conditioning practices, including those here at Augusta National.

Join the discussion of golf and the environment at at our forum on the subject or right here. Dick's letter is a great start.

--Bob Carney

This morning the talk was Nick Faldo and Paul Azinger and especially Azinger's comments to the Mail about Faldo's personality facelift. "Nick Faldo has tried to redefine himself," Azinger is quoted as saying in The Mail on Sunday.

I'd say he is both who he is and who he was. Some people have bought it. Some have not. But if you're going to be a p***k and everyone hates you, why do you think that just because you're trying to be cute and funny on air now that the same people are all going to start to like you?

Meanwhile, another international bonfire continues to simmer. Colin Montgomerie's comments about the Asian invites here at the Masters-- India's Jeev Milkha Singh (80th); Thailand's Prayad Marksaeng (93rd); and Liang Wenchong from China (111th) received invitations thought they rank below Montgomerie in the world ranking--have been defused a bit by Montgomerie's manager, but the Asians have not forgot. "He's done in China," said one editor from there, referring to Montgomerie's appearance fees to play in Asian events and course design jobs. Surely an exaggeration, though Thailand's Marksaeng recent comments were as strong.

"I have no idea why he (Montgomerie) said that, but maybe he dislikes Asian players - he never talks to Asian players anyway.

This all gives the three Asian players more incentive to play well here at the Masters. And the real showdown will be at the BMW Championship in Shangai late this month when Montgomerie and the Asians will compete together. "He'll be on our turf then," said another editor, who added that unless Montgomerie says anything else, there will be no more debating the issue in the media. At least not from "host" Liang Wenchong. "[Liang] will let his game do the talking," he said.

--Bob Carney

Steve Hummer's Atlanta Journal-Constitution pre-tournament piece on Augusta Chairman Billy Payne is worth a look. Payne's Masters will be an international one, no matter what Monty thinks, and it will be open to children. But it will be as reverential as ever, says Hummer. When one columnist suggested that there would be children running amok at the National, Payne took exception.

"No, that's not going to happen," Payne said confidently during an interview last month. He can't be sure how many children will be on the grounds during the tournament — there's even a pool going among the membership — but he seems fairly certain that there will be no breaches of decorum.

Apparently, then, they are not going to install a ball pit next to the Butler Cabin or be offering pony rides at Amen Corner. Nor will Stuart Scott's trademark "Boo-Yeahs" ring through the pines as ESPN takes over airing the Thursday and Friday broadcast from USA Network. Chris Berman will not be commenting on Stewart "Kitchen" Cink or Larry Mize "Eyes Have Seen the Glory."

"I wouldn't respond specifically to any talent," Payne said, ever diplomatically. "I would say the tone of the Augusta broadcast is never going to change. It is respectful. It is in some cases almost reverential as it relates to this beauty. And I know it's going to continue like that."

In Payne's world now, everyone is on that same page.

It's also worth revisiting Dave Kindred's 2007 piece on Payne.

For everything Masters check out our Golf Digest/Golf World coverage. We're working with espn.com and masters.org.

--Bob Carney

In his "President Bill" column on March 14, Golf World's Bill Fields listed 15 things he'd do if he were "President of Golf." One was:

Install a Champions Tour match-play event.

Don Morton of Chesterfield, Missouri, likes the idea, with a caveat:

In 2001 the Enterprise Rent-A-Car Match Play Championship at Boone Valley Golf Club was not that successful after holding five great tournaments there for the seniors. Like any other match play event, many times unknowns end up playing on the final day(s). Maybe a better idea is one which Gary Player proposed three years ago during an interview with Peter Jacobsen. Let's have a full-field tournament event which combines players from the PGA Tour and Champions Tour with pairings and competition similar to the Ryder Cup, Presidents Cup or The Legends. Not only would this provide some interesting pairings but would also give the seniors an opportunity to pass on to many of the PGA Tour players the traditions of and responsibilities the younger players have to professional golf.

You had me with the event, but that passing-on-traditions-and-responsibilities....now you're reaching. It would be wonderful if it happened, of course. The Master of all such education is Arnold Palmer and Fields' piece on Arnie in Golf World's Masters section this week is a must-read.

--Bob Carney

Eric Silfer of West Chester, Pennsylvania, not far from where my 10-handicap friend Friedman lives and where, hopefully, he and I will play soon, has a problem with our US Open Contest Final Five choices:

I am highly disappointed to see that the 5 golfers you selected for the final don't really meet what I understood the basic premise of the challenge to be in the first place: that a 10 handicapper couldn't break 100 on a U.S. Open course and set up. The highest legitimate index in the group seems to be an 8.0, with one "estimating" his handicap at 10. Wow.

Not only will I not be voting for any of them, as nice as they may be or as interesting as their stories may be, but I won't be watching the telecast of it either. I was looking forward to seeing how someone meeting the general classification, i.e. a 10, would handle the course, but you don't have that anymore.

We mailed Dean Knuth, the handicap expert, and he tends to agree with you, Eric. Let me give you our justification, for what it's worth:

First, as you know, the indices of the finalists are not their handicaps. Handicaps are derived from indices based on the course being played. Knuth says the most a 5 handicap such as Erik Norton would get is three shots, making him an 8. John Atkinson, who is an 8.0 index could get more (as would Phil Dembure, a 7.9), taking him well over the 10 mark. So let's say we have an 8 and a 12 as our high and low players.

When Tiger made his statement, he was talking about the difficulty of the course (and specifically, about the difficulty of Oakmont). But the course was key. He was not referring, as far as I can tell, to cameras or crowds, he was talking about nasty rough, narrow fairways and slick greens. Not television cameras, playing with three celebrities, or having the focus of a 60,000-entries contest and our magazine focused squarely on your head--and your game. So let's say low man Erik Norton starts as an 8. Add those other factors and I think he's close to what Tiger was talking about.

We wanted a bit of drama in this, Eric. We played with these guys in Texas. There are no slam dunks to break 100 here. Indeed, if you took a poll of the staff (teachers and editors) it would be 4-1 against any of them breaking 100. We've interviewed a few tour pros about this. Most say, no way.

The only pretty sure bet to break 100 in the foursome is Tony Romo. And we eliminated many "Tony Romos" in our selection process because they were just too good. They really were not what Tiger was talking about. Example: James Doing, the Wisconsin voice coach who made the hilarious "Oh what a beautiful morning!" video you've probably seen. Doing was a plus handicap.

So we get your point and it's a fair one. But ask someone who watches the show if in the end it wasn't pretty close to the original idea.

Thanks,

Bob